Section 1. The twelfth article of amendment to the constitution of the United States is herby repealed.
Section 2. The people shall elect the president of the United States by direct election of the popular vote on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. The people of the United States shall meet in their respective states, and will vote by ballot for President and Vice-President. The popular vote for each state will be listed through the people and the numbers of each vote will be transmitted and sealed.
Section 3. The state department of the United States will certify election results and report to state department of the federal government. The popular vote will be herby integrated through the people and by the people. The state department of the United States will collect the numbers and will transmit it into a system that gives the rights that all men are created equal. The people decision will indicate who will be documented in time as the president and vice president of the United States. The state department of the United States will give equal amount of fairness to only people who are registered as a citizen.
Advertisement:
Rebuttal Paper:
Victoria Monahan
10/08
History
Rebuttal Paper
Amendment number twenty-eight states that the Electoral College is no more, and is now replaced by popular vote. As you may know, the Electoral College was created in the first place in place of popular vote because it was thought that the smaller states were not properly represented. We have now re-instated the popular votes and are willingly ready to answer all concerns against it.
States with smaller populations won’t feel properly represented against larger states.
The election is not about the individual states being represented, it about what the country as a whole wants. We spend too much time and energy on individual states and their statistics when in the end the majority is the only thing that decides who wins
Presidents would only campaign in high-populated areas.
This is more of benefit, because then the candidates will be able to get their message across to more people at once. It also does not necessarily mean that they will only campaign in high-populated areas, because if they want to personalize their campaign, then that is up to them.
Political parties may be a little more distorted and people would go in based on mass appeal.
The role of the American citizen is to give their opinion and no one else’s. Whether or not this is followed is not based on the type of voting system we have in place, it is a matter of society.
Presidential figures would be more like high figure heads/ celebrities rather than logical people who can run a country.
Again, this is not due to the voting system in place. These beliefs are given to the citizens from mainly the media, which is an issue of society. On the other hand, this is not necessarily a bad thing because someone who is possible going to run our country should be recognized as important.
If we base elections on pure popular vote, then the concentrated areas of the country will determine the outcome of the election.
This is not completely true, because although some states have a large population, if you combine some of the smaller states then they are the same as New York or California. Therefore, we should not treat states individually, but rather in sections. If you want to give up your rights as a citizen and not vote, then you are do the country a disservice and are saying that you do not care who runs your country. As states before, it is not about the states individually, but as the opinion of our country as a whole.
The campaign will be less personal.
This not true, because the candidates are still trying to appeal to people, therefore they still need to have a certain amount of personal campaigning. As long as their stances and opinions are clearly stated, then personal campaigning is not actually necessary.
Position Paper:
Popular vote is the only way people will be able to give little countries a voice, for years liberal votes in Texas are completely being disregarded because the majority of the state is conservative. Then, no longer do Americans have a voice, but their state. Vice-Versa happens in California. The idea of all votes of 1 state going to an candidate creates discouraged to votes whom want their presidential candidate to still run worldwide. The reason people decided they wanted Electoral College vote was because our technology wasn’t advanced enough so that we can view our choices and expand our horizons.
The United States is bombarded with news all day from the TV and the Internet and a good portion of voters know about the candidates and where they stand on important issues. The Electoral College also gives unfair advantages to smaller states. The current Electoral College is weighed down too much by the "winner take all" aspect that nearly every state has, and provides no remedy for cases when the vote is nearly split between two candidates and also limits the ability of third party candidates to compete fairly.The popular vote will provide people to not only have their vote demonstrated fairly, but will cause less people to believe that their vote will not matter. There has been a poll by the people that state that regardless on who they vote for their vote will not matter. The statistics show that 75% of American doesn’t vote because regardless on their choice of presidential candidate, the electoral vote will always make the “big” decision.
Wyoming's 3 electoral votes were decided by 243,428 popular votes in 2004. California's 55 electoral votes were d ecided by 12,400,639 popular votes. Doing the math, you'll see that the vote of a single person in Wyoming is worth nearly four times that of a single person's vote in California! Arguably, the United States' most well known phrase is "All men are created equal," which the current electoral system fails to abide by.
Under the National Popular Vote (NPV) plan, states agree to allocate all of their electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states, but only if states with a combined total of 270 electoral votes join the agreement. Just as in every other election, every citizen’s vote would count then equally.
When America’s leader lacks the support of the majority of its citizens, we are a weaker country for it. The notion that some voters count more than others undermines the very principle of one-person, one-vote that democracy is based upon. Electing a second-place candidate weakens the legitimacy of our government and prevents citizens from coming together after bitter partisan battles to unite around a president who everyone agrees won the election fair and square. It contributes to the wave of cynicism and apathy which threaten the core assumptions of our republic.
The following reasons explain why Electorial Vote should be cancelled:
1. Historical - The first relationships of man have been natural democracy's as seen in early Africa. The leader of the nation and the council of elders is a timeless model. One man, one vote is a natural state of affairs.
2. Constitutional - Government by the people, off the people and for the people is the intent of our from of government.
3. Practical - Technology makes this natural state of affairs possible in America today. There is no one elec toral collage between me and my bank. One dollar, one vote and the bank does not loose or miscount my votes. If they do miscount or mismanage my dollar votes they will not be my bank. Our Government can and must, do no less!
The system forces undue focus on states such as New Hampshire and Iowa, whose votes determine the viability of candidates in future primaries. Without denigrating the populations of those states, who is to say that their voters have any more right or duty to select the nominee from the parties?
The "winner takes all" system of electoral college votes means that states such as New Mexico that were decided by fewer than 1,000 votes cannot split their ballots to reflect the split in the populace. It also reduces the incentive to vote for voters whose views are against the majority in their state. I, for example, live in Texas. my "blue" vote is next to meaningless.
At least 70% of Americans support moving a system of electing the president using the national popular vote. Common Cause is working to make that goal a reality Popular Vote will give us a chance to do things fairly and positively throughout the United States of America.
Language of the Amendment:
Section 1. The twelfth article of amendment to the constitution of the United States is herby repealed.
Section 2. The people shall elect the president of the United States by direct election of the popular vote on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. The people of the United States shall meet in their respective states, and will vote by ballot for President and Vice-President. The popular vote for each state will be listed through the people and the numbers of each vote will be transmitted and sealed.
Section 3. The state department of the United States will certify election results and report to state department of the federal government. The popular vote will be herby integrated through the people and by the people. The state department of the United States will collect the numbers and will transmit it into a system that gives the rights that all men are created equal. The people decision will indicate who will be documented in time as the president and vice president of the United States. The state department of the United States will give equal amount of fairness to only people who are registered as a citizen.
Advertisement:
Rebuttal Paper:
Victoria Monahan10/08
History
Rebuttal Paper
Amendment number twenty-eight states that the Electoral College is no more, and is now replaced by popular vote. As you may know, the Electoral College was created in the first place in place of popular vote because it was thought that the smaller states were not properly represented. We have now re-instated the popular votes and are willingly ready to answer all concerns against it.
States with smaller populations won’t feel properly represented against larger states.
The election is not about the individual states being represented, it about what the country as a whole wants. We spend too much time and energy on individual states and their statistics when in the end the majority is the only thing that decides who wins
Presidents would only campaign in high-populated areas.
This is more of benefit, because then the candidates will be able to get their message across to more people at once. It also does not necessarily mean that they will only campaign in high-populated areas, because if they want to personalize their campaign, then that is up to them.
Political parties may be a little more distorted and people would go in based on mass appeal.
The role of the American citizen is to give their opinion and no one else’s. Whether or not this is followed is not based on the type of voting system we have in place, it is a matter of society.
Presidential figures would be more like high figure heads/ celebrities rather than logical people who can run a country.
Again, this is not due to the voting system in place. These beliefs are given to the citizens from mainly the media, which is an issue of society. On the other hand, this is not necessarily a bad thing because someone who is possible going to run our country should be recognized as important.
If we base elections on pure popular vote, then the concentrated areas of the country will determine the outcome of the election.
This is not completely true, because although some states have a large population, if you combine some of the smaller states then they are the same as New York or California. Therefore, we should not treat states individually, but rather in sections. If you want to give up your rights as a citizen and not vote, then you are do the country a disservice and are saying that you do not care who runs your country. As states before, it is not about the states individually, but as the opinion of our country as a whole.
The campaign will be less personal.
This not true, because the candidates are still trying to appeal to people, therefore they still need to have a certain amount of personal campaigning. As long as their stances and opinions are clearly stated, then personal campaigning is not actually necessary.
Position Paper:
Popular vote is the only way people will be able to give little countries a voice, for years liberal votes in Texas are completely being disregarded because the majority of the state is conservative. Then, no longer do Americans have a voice, but their state. Vice-Versa happens in California. The idea of all votes of 1 state going to an candidate creates discouraged to votes whom want their presidential candidate to still run worldwide. The reason people decided they wanted Electoral College vote was because our technology wasn’t advanced enough so that we can view our choices and expand our horizons.The United States is bombarded with news all day from the TV and the Internet and a good portion of voters know about the candidates and where they stand on important issues. The Electoral College also gives unfair advantages to smaller states. The current Electoral College is weighed down too much by the "winner take all" aspect that nearly every state has, and provides no remedy for cases when the vote is nearly split between two candidates and also limits the ability of third party candidates to compete fairly.The popular vote will provide people to not only have their vote demonstrated fairly, but will cause less people to believe that their vote will not matter. There has been a poll by the people that state that regardless on who they vote for their vote will not matter. The statistics show that 75% of American doesn’t vote because regardless on their choice of presidential candidate, the electoral vote will always make the “big” decision.
Wyoming's 3 electoral votes were decided by 243,428 popular votes in 2004. California's 55 electoral votes were d ecided by 12,400,639 popular votes. Doing the math, you'll see that the vote of a single person in Wyoming is worth nearly four times that of a single person's vote in California! Arguably, the United States' most well known phrase is "All men are created equal," which the current electoral system fails to abide by.
Under the National Popular Vote (NPV) plan, states agree to allocate all of their electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states, but only if states with a combined total of 270 electoral votes join the agreement. Just as in every other election, every citizen’s vote would count then equally.
When America’s leader lacks the support of the majority of its citizens, we are a weaker country for it. The notion that some voters count more than others undermines the very principle of one-person, one-vote that democracy is based upon. Electing a second-place candidate weakens the legitimacy of our government and prevents citizens from coming together after bitter partisan battles to unite around a president who everyone agrees won the election fair and square. It contributes to the wave of cynicism and apathy which threaten the core assumptions of our republic.
The following reasons explain why Electorial Vote should be cancelled:
1. Historical - The first relationships of man have been natural democracy's as seen in early Africa. The leader of the nation and the council of elders is a timeless model. One man, one vote is a natural state of affairs.
2. Constitutional - Government by the people, off the people and for the people is the intent of our from of government.
3. Practical - Technology makes this natural state of affairs possible in America today. There is no one elec toral collage between me and my bank. One dollar, one vote and the bank does not loose or miscount my votes. If they do miscount or mismanage my dollar votes they will not be my bank. Our Government can and must, do no less!
The system forces undue focus on states such as New Hampshire and Iowa, whose votes determine the viability of candidates in future primaries. Without denigrating the populations of those states, who is to say that their voters have any more right or duty to select the nominee from the parties?
The "winner takes all" system of electoral college votes means that states such as New Mexico that were decided by fewer than 1,000 votes cannot split their ballots to reflect the split in the populace. It also reduces the incentive to vote for voters whose views are against the majority in their state. I, for example, live in Texas. my "blue" vote is next to meaningless.
At least 70% of Americans support moving a system of electing the president using the national popular vote. Common Cause is working to make that goal a reality Popular Vote will give us a chance to do things fairly and positively throughout the United States of America.